Products Liability

Question 1

Implied Warranty

Answer 1

By putting a product into the stream of commerce, a seller implies that the product is safe for the purposes of its use.

Question 2

Express Warranty

Answer 2

Explicit promise or representation of a product made by its seller/manufacturer.

Question 3

Products Liability: Warranty

Answer 3

A manufacturer is strictly liable for damages which result from the failure of products to comply with representations made by the manufacturer.

Question 4

Baxter v. Ford Motor

Shatter-Proof Windshield

Answer 4

A manufacturer is liable for breach of express warranty even if the product was purchased from a third party seller

Question 5

Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors

Wheel Spin

Answer 5

A manufacturer who advertizes their product takes on an implied warranty taht the product is reasonably safe for its advertized use.

Question 6

Manufacturing Defect

Answer 6

Inevitable failings in the manufacturing process result in anomalous defects in some products
Elements:
1. The product reached the user in an unreasonably dangerous condition
2. There were no substantial changes in condition from leaving the manufacturer to reaching the user
3. The defective condition was the cause of the injury

Question 7

Design Defect

Answer 7

Intentional design decisions made by the manufacturer have resulted in an unsafe product
Elements:
1. The product reached the user in an unreasonably dangerous condition
2. The injury was caused by the defect
3. The defect can be traced back to the manufacturer.

Question 8

Rix v. General Motors

Damaged Hose in Car

Answer 8

In manufacturing defect cases, the plaintiff must prove the defective product reached the user in the same condition as when it left the manufacturer. This is not required in design defect cases.

Question 9

Prentis v. Yale Manufacturing

Forklift

Answer 9

The plaintiff is held to a negligence standard in design defect cases.

Question 10

Friedman v. General Motors

Answer 10

Circumstantial evidence can prove a defect so long as it shows the injury was caused by a defect rather than other possible causes. The plaintiff does need to eliminate all possible causes.

Question 11

Daly v. General Motors

Defective Car and a DUI

Answer 11

Comparative negligence may be mixed with strict liability. A defendant may be held strictly liable for a defective product and have their damages reduced by the portion of the plaintiff’s negligence.

Question 12

Ford Motor v. Matthews

Tractor Safety Mechanism

Answer 12

A manufacturer is not strictly liable if the plaintiff misused the product, but is liable if the plaintiff used the product for its proper purpose carelessly.

Question 13

MacPherson v. Buick Motor

Collapsed Wheel from Defective Wood

Answer 13

If it is foreseeable that a product, if manufactured defectively, would cause injury, the manufacturer has a duty of care to all foreseeable users.

Question 14

Negligence Risk-Utility Analysis

Answer 14

• Essentially negligence calculus, weighs up the risk associated with the product and its utility
• Design is defective if the risk of the product is greater than its utility
• Factors: usefulness to society, functional utility, style/marketability, number and severity of injuries, cost to reduce risk, consumer knowledge of danger, feasibility of loss spreading

Question 15

Consumer Expectation Analysis

Answer 15

A design is defective if the product is more dangerous than could be anticipated by the ordinary consumer.

Question 16

Reasonable Alternative Test

Answer 16

• A design is defective if foreseeable risks could be reduced by adopting an alternative design.
• A manufacturer is liable if they do not adopt designs where the safety advantages outweigh possible disadvantages (cost, attractiveness, etc.)

Question 17

Warning Defect

Answer 17

A manufacturer is liable for injuries resulting from a failure to warn the user of a foreseeable risk or from a failure to warn the user of foreseeable misuses and the associated harms.

Question 18

‘Good Warning’

Answer 18

1. Adequately attracts the user’s attention
2. Discloses the nature and extent of possible harm
3. Instructs the user on how to avoid or mitigate the risk of harm

Question 18

‘Good Warning’

Answer 18

1. Adequately attracts the user’s attention
2. Discloses the nature and extent of possible harm
3. Instructs the user on how to avoid or mitigate the risk of harm

Question 19

Anderson v. Owens

Asbestos Warning

Answer 19

• A manufacturer has no duty to warn of obvious risks or to warn of risks they could not and did not know.
• To be held strictly liable for failure to warn, the defendant must have had actual and constructive knowledge of the potential risk.

Question 20

Express Preemption

Answer 20

• If Congress has the power to regulate products and manufacturers comply with these regulations, state courts cannot impose tort law on the manufacturers for design defects.
• If a product is pre-market approved by a federal agency the manufacturer is not liable for any injuries resulting from design defects.

Question 21

Implied Preemption

Answer 21

Even if Congress did not expressly pass preemption laws and regulations, a manufacturer may not be held liable for design defects if doing so would frustrate the will of Congress.

Question 22

Sellers

Answer 22

A seller is liable for any product they sell in an unreasonably dangerous condition if the seller sold the product and the product reaches the consumer in the same condition.